Booker v. Griffin
- Paul Davison
- 7:16-cv-00072
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Booker v. Griffin, Magistrate Judge Davison directed the clerk to seek volunteer counsel for discovery and possible settlement discussions.
Booker, the plaintiff, was eligible to receive a request for limited volunteer representation; the defendants could be affected by counsel’s participation in discovery and settlement discussions.
What happened
In Booker v. Griffin, the court considered Booker’s request for a free lawyer in a case involving due-process and retaliation claims related to his placement in administrative confinement at Green Haven Correctional Facility.
The court found that Booker qualified as unable to afford counsel and that his claims appeared substantial because they had survived extensive motion practice. It also found that discovery could involve sensitive information affecting institutional security and that a lawyer would likely help produce a fair result.
Magistrate Judge Davison granted the request in a limited way: the clerk was directed to seek volunteer counsel for discovery and possible settlement discussions. Counsel would not have to handle later dispositive motions unless the court expanded the representation, and there was no guarantee that a volunteer would accept the case.
The detailed version
- Booker v. Griffin · No. 7:16-cv-00072
- Paul Davison
- Dec. 5, 2019
Background
Booker filed a request to proceed without paying court fees, which the court granted on January 14, 2016. He then sought volunteer legal representation in his civil case. His Second Amended Complaint asserted due-process and retaliation claims concerning his placement in administrative confinement at Green Haven Correctional Facility.
Legal standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a court may ask a lawyer to represent a person who cannot afford counsel. In civil cases, the court cannot require a lawyer to take the case or use public funds to pay the lawyer. The court therefore considered the factors identified by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, including whether the claims appeared likely to have substance, the person’s ability to investigate and present the case, the complexity of the legal issues, the need for cross-examination, and whether counsel would likely lead to a fair result.
Court’s analysis
The court found that Booker qualified as indigent because his request to proceed without paying court fees had been granted. It also found that his claims were sufficiently likely to have substance because they had survived extensive motion practice. The court emphasized that discovery involved sensitive confidential information that the defendants plausibly said could compromise institutional security if disclosed to Booker while he was representing himself. The court concluded that the relevant factors favored volunteer representation.
Order and scope of representation
The court granted Booker’s application in a limited manner and directed the clerk to attempt to locate volunteer counsel. The lawyer’s role would be limited primarily to conducting discovery, although counsel could also participate in settlement discussions. Counsel would not be required to respond to a dispositive motion unless the court expanded the scope of representation or granted other appropriate relief, such as more time for Booker to respond. Unless the court expanded the representation, the lawyer’s role would end after discovery was completed. The court also explained that volunteer counsel could seek reimbursement of certain out-of-pocket expenses under the court’s pro bono fund rules.
The order did not guarantee that a lawyer would volunteer. It stated that a lengthy delay was possible and that Booker should be prepared to continue without a lawyer if no volunteer accepted the case.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.